On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 10:45:31AM +0100, Philipp Stanner wrote: > On Mon, 2024-01-08 at 10:37 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Other than that I indifferent if this is a good idea. There are so many > > helpers around these functions ... > > Around which, the devres functions in general? There are, but that's > kind of the point, unless we'd want everyone to call into the lowest > level region-request functions with their own devres callbacks. > > In any case: What would your suggestion be, should parties who can't > (without restructuring very large parts of their code) ioremap() and > request() simultaneously just not use devres? See my patch #2 > Or is there another way to reach that goal that I'm not aware of? This wasn't a constructive feedback unfortunately and more a feeling than a measurable criticism. To actually improve the state, maybe first check what helpers are actually there, how they are used and if they are suitable to what they are used for. Having many helpers is a hint that the usage is complicated. Is that because the situation is complicated, or is this just a big pile of inconsistency that can be simplified and consolidated? Also I think there are helpers that take a resource type parameter (as your function) and others hard code it in the function name. Maybe unifying that would be nice, too. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
